Volume 34: Number 67
Thu, 09 Jun 2016
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] samael
On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have
> never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger
> of doing so?
One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a
human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule.
--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other
words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even
when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote:
: RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she
: wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah,
: and never will be Chayav...
I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more
binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what
women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*.
: To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here
: regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman
: geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot,
: Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh
: haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a
: woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is
: a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives
: heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant
: berakhot...
And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about
HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah
ve'osah saying "vetzivanu".
For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for
chinukh work?
And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count
the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too.
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote:
: If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a
: bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah
: (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able
: to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her
: chiyuv-level not having changed.
If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and
perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now
rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides
speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than
what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah
ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios.
: ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as
: follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action
: (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the
: result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to
: achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting
: avodat Hashem...
Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra
has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah
...
: My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a
: mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the
: mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a
: maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is
: definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan
: counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira
: (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ...
Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which
knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his
own home!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering?
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the
: government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not
: knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas.
Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt
censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the
readership would realize he was obviously doing so.
Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who
disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it.
But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or
your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos
appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest.
: In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael
: Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to
: listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees
: and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita...
Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is*
a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu"
on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating
: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not
: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what
: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that
: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If
: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? ....
His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This
would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on
their audience.
Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently
includes conflicting laws.
: rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel
: against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why
: sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the
: main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek,
: there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast
: that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the
: ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim.
This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs
to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo
sasur cannot apply.
Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq
de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur.
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300
: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to
: explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim
: d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do
: the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that
: whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we
: keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem.
:
: This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I
: referenced who explains the Ramabam....
I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps
shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore
came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan>
R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of
Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52
min. in). <http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/709404> As is my norm,
I add bits here and there.
...
But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic
law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you,
neither to the left nor to the right"?
1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made
the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the
case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between
Torah and rabbinic law.
2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing,
180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq
sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently.
The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of
relying on majority...
Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the
Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently?
It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ...
So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to
only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that
we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah
law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same
consequent rationale.
3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim
17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently
wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a
problem (metu'af, meshuqatz).
A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't
inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or
accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with
rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing
itself.
4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is
a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator,
all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be
He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the
explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves
lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality.
Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as
Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will
today through the rabbis.
5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a
rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a
law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance
of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom
Tov outside of Israel.
He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal
"Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a
connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a
worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of
Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the
2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What
differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are
connected to.
Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This
would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a
reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for
how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different
in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer,
building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of
that reality.
And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the
Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah.
6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem
gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient
crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when
shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the
tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th
year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such
guarantees.
7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the
2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills
based on what's decreed down below.
Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh
Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind,
it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav.
However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be
stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the
observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he
would have ruled leniently.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering?
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up
On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> in this documentary
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&;feature=youtu.be it is
> claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few
> babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work
> in the long run.
That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of
family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it
could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose
"plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having
more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies?
--
Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other
words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even
when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)?
:
: "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs.
: For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing*
: anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king".
Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote
because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein"
is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but
doing a kohein's job.
Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir".
Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq:
And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring
to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be
a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human
species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him
"with one shoulder"...
Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty
to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin
ha'enoshi".
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering?
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Arie Folger
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim
R' Zev Zero wrote:
> But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not
> involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his
> beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all.
I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of
Buzi, disagreed with you.
Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um.
"And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and
profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean"
Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with
the job, too.
Kol tuv,
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/
* Koscheres Geld (Podcast)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/15/koscheres-geld-podcast/>
* Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen
Gedankengut (Podcast)
<http://rabbifolger.net/
2016/02/14/kennt-die-existenz-nur-den-chaos-gttliches-vorsehen-im-judischen
-gedankengut-podcast/>
* Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/11/halacha-zum-wochenabs
chnitt-baruch-hu-uwaruch-schemo/>
* Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/09/is-there-order-to
-the-world-providence-in-jewish-thought/>
* What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment)
<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/02/08/what-is-modern-orthodoxy-fro
m-a-radio-segment/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160609/8ee05cee/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs
I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite
interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail
and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss
detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many
mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious
approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160609/587c4b58/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is*
> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu"
> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a)
>
The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo
tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only
an asmachta.
>
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
>
> : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating
> : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not
> : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be
> what
> : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara
> that
> : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din.
> If
> : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? ....
>
> His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This
> would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on
> their audience.
>
> Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently
> includes conflicting laws.
>
That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human
beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when
making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the
act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to
their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the
action.
> : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel
> : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand
> why
> : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the
> : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek,
> : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast
> : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the
> : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim.
>
> This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs
> to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo
> sasur cannot apply.
>
This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam
> Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq
> de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur.
> ...
I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps
> shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore
> came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah.
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan>
>
> R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of
> Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52
> min. in). <http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/709404> As is my norm,
> I add bits here and there.
> ...
> But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic
> law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you,
> neither to the left nor to the right"?
>
> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made
> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the
> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between
> Torah and rabbinic law.
>
This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and
then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the
opinion of the Ran.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160609/44aba01c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from
> 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again,
> in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken
> as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him.
>
> Ben
>
> And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he
was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she
wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger
nisayon then Yosef faced?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160609/60b61ecd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan
I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only
d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he
did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to
resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so.
I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very
relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be
a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula.
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160609/e229009d/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US
From
http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn
Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that
since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I
wanted to double-check with you, just in case.
(A consumer's question)
A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which
was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to
countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled
that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy
regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such
regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as
cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be
permissible.
To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via
kosh...@ou.org<mailto:kosh...@ou.org?subject=Chalav%20Stam%20-%20Vacatio
n%20Destinations>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160609/47136967/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)